ROCOR responds on Sr. Vassa

[jckstraw72]

Full response: The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia - Official Website

"... the counsel contained therein is in contradiction to the Church’s teaching on sexuality, repentance and family life. It does not represent an Orthodox understanding of anthropology or theology, and in the counsel it purports to offer presents a grave spiritual danger to those who might follow it, in terms of their own understanding of sexuality, as well as in the rearing of children."

"It should be clear to men and women of faith that mere verbal acknowledgement, with regards to homosexuality, that “actively living it out is a sin,” is not sufficient to establish a text’s keeping with Orthodox teaching in the light of the Gospel, when the same text nevertheless equates homosexuality in numerous places to a “God-given gift, and cross,” or “one’s gift-and-cross of (homo)sexuality"..."

"In these spiritually confused times, when many are being led astray by social norms that employ the pretensions of compassion to abandon the creation order and the teachings of Christ, which are the only true source of authentic compassion and genuine spiritual healing, there can be no room for ambiguity or false witness on such critical matters."

"We instruct therefore that the contents of these publicly-posted materials be disregarded by the faithful as contrary to the teachings of the Gospel and pastorally harmful; that they be withdrawn and removed from any web sites or publications that seek authentically to represent Orthodox theological and pastoral teaching; and that in the future such materials be treated with most extreme reticence and caution."

 

[gzt]

The phrasing of this article seems a bit confused to me, as they seem to suggest that merely being homosexual is a sin to be repented of.

 

[ArmyMatt]

The phrasing of this article seems a bit confused to me, as they seem to suggest that merely being homosexual is a sin to be repented of.

it is. sin is not simply breaking God's rules, but missing the mark of how God created us to be. those of us with straight lust for the opposite sex, even if we don't act upon it, still must repent of that lust.

sin ain't always something we are culpable of, but we still must repent of it.

 

[gzt]

it is. sin is not simply breaking God's rules, but missing the mark of how God created us to be. those of us with straight lust for the opposite sex, even if we don't act upon it, still must repent of that lust.

sin ain't always something we are culpable of, but we still must repent of it.

I didn't mention anything about lust - everybody is certainly called to repent of that.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I didn't mention anything about lust - everybody is certainly called to repent of that.

sexual attraction to someone of the same sex is lust, which means being homosexual is something to be repented of

 

[gzt]

You're a homosexual even when not experiencing lust. Further, this is the sort of temptations thrown at you, not necessarily engagement with or assent to those temptations.

 

[gzt]

Would you say being heterosexual is a sin?

 

[ArmyMatt]

You're a homosexual even when not experiencing lust. Further, this is the sort of temptations thrown at you, not necessarily engagement with or assent to those temptations.

no, if you are attracted to someone of the same sex, it is lust and only lust. there is no homosexual anything without lust, unless the person is repenting of it. sin means to miss the mark, so anything short of what God created us for is sin.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Would you say being heterosexual is a sin?

anything less than self emptying sexual love between two people of the opposite sex is sin. so heterosexuality can be sinful, but homosexuality always is.

 

[gzt]

I would say that specific instances of lust are sins to be repented of, not "being homosexual" (or being heterosexual, for that matter).

 

[ArmyMatt]

I would say that specific instances of lust are sins to be repented of, not "being homosexual" (or being heterosexual, for that matter).

we define sin more holistically than that. Fr Hopko gets into this in his talk on sin.

 

[gzt]

I agree that we define sin more holistically than that, but doing so kind of passes over the level of identifying "being homosexual" as sin.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I agree that we define sin more holistically than that, but doing so kind of passes over the level of identifying "being homosexual" as sin.

sure, but since being homosexual misses the mark God set for us, it is therefore sin which must be repented of.

 

[gzt]

How?

 

[rusmeister]

This is EXACTLY what I mean by using modern language the fathers never used. In simple and necessary translation, what AM is saying is that experiencing the desire is brokenness, amartia, to be struggled against. Isn't that right, Matt?

But when you say things like 'He "IS" 'homosexual' - or worse, "gay", you are already framing things in false terms, never used in our Tradition, implying a normal and natural ontological state. That, in turn, leads to the kinds of errors ranging from Sr Vassa's, to the ones that call people "transgender". And so evil multiplies. "In the beginning was the Word". And in the beginning of truth or falsehood is the words.

 

[rusmeister]

Full response: The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia - Official Website

"... the counsel contained therein is in contradiction to the Church’s teaching on sexuality, repentance and family life. It does not represent an Orthodox understanding of anthropology or theology, and in the counsel it purports to offer presents a grave spiritual danger to those who might follow it, in terms of their own understanding of sexuality, as well as in the rearing of children."

"It should be clear to men and women of faith that mere verbal acknowledgement, with regards to homosexuality, that “actively living it out is a sin,” is not sufficient to establish a text’s keeping with Orthodox teaching in the light of the Gospel, when the same text nevertheless equates homosexuality in numerous places to a “God-given gift, and cross,” or “one’s gift-and-cross of (homo)sexuality"..."

"In these spiritually confused times, when many are being led astray by social norms that employ the pretensions of compassion to abandon the creation order and the teachings of Christ, which are the only true source of authentic compassion and genuine spiritual healing, there can be no room for ambiguity or false witness on such critical matters."

"We instruct therefore that the contents of these publicly-posted materials be disregarded by the faithful as contrary to the teachings of the Gospel and pastorally harmful; that they be withdrawn and removed from any web sites or publications that seek authentically to represent Orthodox theological and pastoral teaching; and that in the future such materials be treated with most extreme reticence and caution."

Glory to God!

 

[ArmyMatt]

How?

Lord, take this from me.
Lord, give me the strength to overcome this temptation.
Lord have mercy on me.
Lord, allow me to endure this with your grace.

etc.

 

[gzt]

No, no, I mean, how, precisely, is the state of being missing the mark, given that somebody who is homosexual may not at a particular moment be experiencing temptation of this sort but is still homosexual regardless.

 

[gzt]

And may be successfully resisting all temptation and not even engaging with the logismoi they are presented with but still are homosexual.

 

[rusmeister]

Matt, do you think I'm wrong?
Gzt, I've given up on hoping you'll answer me, but would always be happy to be surprised. You once spoke about my "case". This, your posts here, is my case - the assumption that a person has a permanent and unshakeable ontological identity as "a homosexual", rather than recognizing, as the fathers did, that one could fight a passion, beat it, and achieve holiness.

Once you let go of that false assumption, I think we may finally be able to be on the same page instead of in opposition.